This is like your claim that no real hunters use semi-automatic weapons…IOW, you are talking out of your ass again. The killings on Bastille Day in France (using a truck) would be MUCH more than a blip in the statistics from the US…if it happened here it would be only the 9/11 attacks that had higher death tolls for a single attack. The 19 killed in Japan would not be a record, but it would certainly catch major headlines across the US.
One thing I’m trying to get across is that we should pay little attention to the occasional mass killing which can happen in just about any country. If a religious crazy wants to get a gun or a truck he can probably get one somehow. The thing to pay attention to is the day in day out murders that make up the vast majority of gun deaths outside suicide. Most of these are from pistols and most of those are semi-autos. The TV spectaculars would hardly rate as noise in the statistics.
But in that same SCOTUS case they reserved for the govt the right to determine what kind of pistol. So if there was the will autoloading handguns could be prohibited.
Ok, that’s a fair enough claim. The US certainly does have a higher murder rate than most other industrial nations. And a large number of them are from guns. And a large number of those are semi-automatic weapons. But the reason many are from semi-automatic weapons is simply because a very large percentage of ALL guns in the US are semi-automatic, so it’s unsurprising.
You obviously feel strongly that banning guns in the US (or ‘only’ semi-automatic weapons to start) would go a long way towards eliminating the ~10k gun murders in the US that happen each year. Maybe you are even right, to a point…perhaps banning guns would reduce those murders by a thousand…maybe even several thousand, at least several thousand from guns. I’m unconvinced that it would have a major impact on the overall murder RATE, simply shifting them to other weapons (or maybe not even that, since criminals with illegal guns today don’t seem much fussed about the fact they are illegal, and if people can get illegal drugs and other illicit things they will probably be able to get guns), since, personally I think that those murders you are focused would happen regardless…and that they are already dropping in the US over time, and will continue to do so, but it’s a point I can concede could be valid. You should focus on that and not on trying to say that semi-autos aren’t used by hunters, etc etc…since it’s so obviously and easily proven wrong, making your overall case (and point) weaker.
Yes, I would favor banning all autoloaders but would be satisfied to ban just the auto pistols repealing or relaxing existing firearms laws
Would you still allow revolvers in this scenario, or are you planning to ban all hand guns?
Cite?
There isn’t. The trend line has been moving the wrong (well, for you anyways) direction for decades. The last time a majority favored a handgun ban was in the early '60’s.
And even if the political will existed, the Supreme Court did not “reserve for the govt the right to determine what kind of pistol” could be banned, at least not as broadly as you seem to think. DC vs. Heller said:
If you want a gun ban to stand up to Constitutional challenges, you’ve got to show that the weapons you’re trying to ban are both “dangerous and unusual” and also not “in common use at the time”. Any guesses what’s in common use today? Auto-loading pistols and revolvers.
O’Connor died in 78 before many of the recent semi auto guns had become mainstream. He however defined old school for sure. I’m sure you have heard of Jim Zumbo, another professional writer who quickly found himself out of touch with the modern firearm enthusiasts. Just because a paid hunter/writer likes or doesn’t like something certainly doesn’t mean that is the end all be all. The Benelli line of semi auto bird guns are quality pieces that were specifically designed for fast follow up shots whether it be waterfowl when limited to 3 shots or upland game without such limits. I’m not sure that I know of any adult hunter, experienced or otherwise who can’t handle the recoil above a .410. Do you really believe that or is it something that you read?
I can tell you that O’Connor was quite clear in his disdain for gun control, semi autos included. I have read many of his writings especially in 68 stating how bad the Gun Control Act of 1968 would be for the law abiding gun owner. Interestingly enough, he did support a licensing system for gun owners, but drew the line at that.
Its not a question of “handling” the recoil, its a question of how long do you have to get back on target. I still have yet to hear anyone claim any advantage in killing animals with an autoloader over any other type of repeater. If they are an advantage then a double barrel shotgun or rifle would be even better, especially with the double trigger models – you can fire both barrels at the same time - twice as good.
What you say about O’Conners stand on the gun control act I do not doubt. As for O’Conner writing before modern semi-autos were sold also true. The only thing of any importance that has changed is the development of short, light weight, small caliber military rifles with clips as long as your arm that are for sale to the Walter Mitty Rambos. Somehow I doubt O’Conner would be pleased.
But be that as it may, personally I would be happy to see only semi-auto pistols be banned. As said before they are only of use for gang members who can’t hit atarget without spaying a shower of bullets in the general direction or to pound nails if you don’t have a hammer. Hunters and their guns of any type and other recreational types are not really the problem.
the answer to this question is easy: did the Founders let ordinary joes have cannons? I doubt it. Therefore, there’s no reason for ordinary joes to have military-type weapons. Handguns are fine by me, so are hunting and sniper rifles, but not semi-autos, AK-47s, etc.
[QUOTE=DtypeJag]
I still have yet to hear anyone claim any advantage in killing animals with an autoloader over any other type of repeater.
[/QUOTE]
Probably because it’s a silly comparison, seeing as how they fire pretty much at the same rate, and with speed loaders and large cylinders the reload times are comparable. But this has little to do with your claim earlier that ‘very few experienced hunters even own them’, which is such a ridiculous claim and so easily disproven that it’s become the focus of subsequent discussion.
And a hammer is superior to a screw driver…if you are driving a nail. It’s not quite as good a tool, however, if you are trying to remove a screw from an engine. And neither tool is good if one wants to paint a house. Again, why do you make such statements that are so easy to counter??
Yet, as you pointed out earlier, revolvers have basically the same rate of fire, and even reloading them with the right equipment (or simply having a second one fully loaded) is pretty much the same. So…why semi-auto pistols and not other hand guns?
If we banned all the semi-automatic hand guns, do you believe A) that this would keep them out of the hands of gang members, and B) that if by some chance it did, they couldn’t do the same things with revolvers?
Private citizens owned cannon and large stocks of black powder, the most powerful destructive devices then in existence at least until after the Civil War. IIRC, you can in fact own any piece of military ordinance that isn’t on a export-ban list. The main restriction is the ammunition, each round of which is considered a destructive device subject to NFA rules.
Yep. Most merchant ships throughout the age of sail had guns. Some militia companies were raised by private rich individuals. And, you have heard of Privateers?:dubious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_RedivivaColumbia Rediviva (commonly known as the Columbia) was a privately owned ship …10 cannons, 2 heavy stern chaser guns, 4 heavy and 4 lighter broadside guns.
Prince de Neufchatel - Wikipedia
Armament:
Privateer: 18 guns*
You never do that when hunting, on purpose anyway.
I’m not a hunter, so why wouldn’t you do that?
Multiple reasons:
It will hurt
It could very possibly damage the gun
IF you manage to hit your target, you will most likely destroy it.
hurt what?
An entire deer would be destroyed by that?
I just said that the Benelli semi autos are a quality gun built specifically for hunting. They fire so fast and handle recoil so nicely that one never needs to take their eye off of the target after the first shot. A double is nice and fast but it only holds two and reloads take forever. Only a moron would fire both barrels at the same time, and they would only do it once.
The AR series was introduced in 1958, 20 years before he passed. The AK-47 was introduced in 1948. I’m sure he would have no use for hunting with either as he was content with his 1964 Winchester model 70. At the same time, his writings were clear that he would and did support ownership of both by average Joes. Zumbo on the other hand, linked the AR-15 with terrorists. He heard quite quickly from 10’s of thousands of hunters and sportsmen that yes the AR has a place in the law abiding gun owner’s hands, for hunting and sport. He found out real quick that as an “experienced” hunter and writer he had allowed himself to get out of touch with his readers and lost everything as a result.
Hurt the shooter.
Most deer hunters don’t use doubles. They are mostly used for upland game. I was speaking of shot shells and small game targets.
If someone was dumb enough to fire two slugs out of both barrels at the same time, it would REALLY hurt, it would damage the gun, and depending on the type of slug used, significantly damage the meat to be recovered from the deer.